Talk:2013 Cotton Bowl Classic/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll review this article. Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Mostly fine. Any errors are minor and probably preferential.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   There are a couple sections that need citations. The second paragraphs of both the Texas A&M and Oklahoma sections need citations since they are statistics or facts. The first two on each of those are fine.  Done --Go Phightins! 01:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article covers all required information and stays on topic

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No issues here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars of note. Article is stable and unlikely to change.

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Quick passing as there are no images.

7. Overall: I will pass this once the citation issues are fixed. Passed! Good job, and keep up the good work. :)

   Pass/Fail: